Ganesha Moorthy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.11.2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
1. Ganesha Moorthy
2. Vinothkumar
3. Ramkumar
4. Katturaja
5. Jaya
6. Ramu
7. Palraj
8. Subash ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 8 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.
[in Crime No.394 of 2025] ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mahendra Pathy For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Veerapandi Selvaraj 1/7
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS, 2023 PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.394 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191 (3), 296(b), 324, 329, 118(1), 351(3), 303(2) BNS and 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No.394 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to a dispute between the de-facto complainant's grandson and the fourth accused's daughter, all the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant on 20.10.2025 at about 11:00 p.m., armed with deadly weapons and abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant with aruva, causing a head injury. During the course of the scuffle, 31⁄2 sovereigns of gold ornaments were found missing. Hence, the present case.
2/7
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that due to some dispute, a false case has been registered as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the injured discharged from the Government Hospital and he was admitted in private hospital for further treatment. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned Intervenor submitted that the accused persons had attacked the defacto complainant and snatched gold ornaments. He further submitted that the injured person is still taking treatment from the private hospital. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
3/7
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the injured discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District and on further conditions that: (a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 shall stay in Dindigul and report before the Dindigul Town North Police Station daily at 4/7
10.30 a.m until further orders. The 5th petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two days and thereafter as and when required for the purpose of interrogation.
(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.
(S S Y J) ebsi 10.11.2025 5/7
TO
1. The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Police Station, Dindigul.
3. The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY,J.
ebsi 10.11.2025 2/2 7/7